Our limited space forbids the publication of the whole of
Senator Grimes’ recent speech on the surrender of slaves by the army, but we
give a lengthy extract containing the gist of it. How marked the contrast in the course pursued
by Gens. Hunter and Hooker in regard to fugitive slaves! The former, with the independence of a man, declares that every slave who
touches his lines becomes a freeman. In
the words of Plunkett, he stands “redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled by
the irresistible genius of universal emancipation.” Gen. Hunter goes forth with the sword in one
hand, and liberty in the other. He slays
the traitor, and frees the oppressed.
Not so with Gen. Hooker. In one
hand he holds slavery, and in the other a – scabbard. The traitorous emissary crosses his lines in
search of his property – not his horse, but his negro – spies out his enemy’s
strength, and returns to report at headquarters. – When will our Generals learn
wisdom? Learn that such things cannot be
practiced with any hope of a speedy conclusion to the war? But to the extract:
There seems to be a purpose in some quarters to do by
indirection what cannot be done directly.
The object being to serve slave holders, whether loyal or rebel, (and
they are generally rebels,) there seems to be a disposition to the part of some
officers to travel around a law which they dare not break through. Unable any longer to compel the soldiers to
engage in the search, capture, and rendition of slaves, they now authorize slave-hunters,
armed with pistols and military orders, to traverse their camps in search of
their prey, and, by threat of military punishment, attempt to compel the
soldiers to remain quiescent witnesses of the atrocities that may be committed. There is no controversy about the fact, the
evidence is overwhelming and is to be found on every hand. Only last week, General Joseph Hooker, a
native of Massachusetts, in command of a division of our army, issued an order,
of which the following is a copy.
HEADQUARTERS, HOOKER’S
DIVISION, CAMP BAKER,
LOWER POTOMAC, March
26, 1862.
To Brigade and
Regimental Commanders of this Division:
Messrs. Nally, Gray, Dummington, Dent, Adams, Speake, Price,
Posey and Cobey, citizens of Maryland; have negroes supposed to be with some of
the regiments of this division; the Brigadier General commanding, directs that
they be permitted to visit all the camps of his command, in search of their
property, and if found, that they be allowed to take possession of the same,
without any interference whatever.
Should any obstacle be thrown in their way by any officer or soldier in
the division, they will be at once reported by the regimental commanders to
these headquarters.
JOSEPH DICKINSON,
Asst. Adjutant Gen.
It will be observed that this order authorizes nine person,
citizens of Maryland, to visit the camps of Hooker’s division, without any
judicial or other process other than this military order, and there search for
slaves “without any interference whatever,” and “should any obstacle be thrown
in their way, by any officer or soldier in the division,” they are threatened
with an instant report to headquarters and a consequent court martial and
punishment. The appearance and conduct
of this band of marauders produced precisely the result that might have been
anticipated. In describing it, I use the
language of the officer in command of one of the regimental camps which they
visited and attempted to search:
HEADQUARTERS SECOND
REGIMENT,
EXCELSIOR BRIGADE, CAMP
HALL, March 27.
Lieutenant: In
compliance with verbal directions form Brigadier General D. E. Sickles, to
report as to the occurrence at this camp on the afternoon of the 26th instant,
I beg leave to submit the following:
At about 3:30 o’clock p. m., March 26, 1862, admission
within our lines was demanded by a body of horsemen (civilians) numbering
perhaps, fifteen. They presented the
lieutenant commanding the guard with an order of entrance from Brigadier
General Joseph Hooker, commanding division (copy appended), the order stating
that nine men should be
admitted. I ordered that the balance of
the party should remain without the lines, which was done. Upon the appearance of the others, there was
visible dissatisfaction and considerable murmuring among the soldiers, to so
great an extent that I almost feared for the safety of the slave owners. At this time Gen. Sickles opportunely
arrived, and instructed me to order them outside the camp, which I did, amid
the loud cheers of our soldiers. It is proper
to add, that before entering our lines, and within about seventy-five or a
hundred yards of our camp, one of their number discharged two pistol shots at a
negro who was running past them, with an evident intention of taking his
life. This justly enraged our men.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Your obedient
servant,
JOHN TOLEN,
Maj. Comdg. 2d Regt.,
E. B.
Mr. President: Are
such scenes as were witnessed in this camp calculated to promote discipline,
and to inspire respect for the officers in command, or affection for the
Government that tolerates them?
Doubtless such officers will find methods to gratify their tastes in
this direction, but I trust that they will not long be permitted to torment
better men than themselves, who happen to be their inferiors in rank. Is it unreasonable to ask the Government to
see to it, that the spirit of the law of Congress shall not be evaded by
indirection; and that examples of passion and violence and murder shall not be exhibited
in our camps with the connivance or under the authority of our military
officers?
The Senator from Ohio made to us, a few days ago, a most
extraordinary statement of the condition of affairs at the capital of his own
State. In one of the military camps in
the city of Columbus are several hundred rebel prisoners of war. Some of them are attended by colored
servants, claimed as slaves. These
servants have been transported at Government expense, fed, clothed, and
doctored by the Government; and while the rebel officers are allowed the freedom
of the city upon parole the servants are strictly guarded and confined in camp
by our own soldiers. The free State of
Ohio is virtually converted, by the order or by the assent of a military
commander, and against the wishes of the people, into a slave State; and that
order is enforced by men in our employment and under our pay. And this state of things does not exist in
Columbus alone. Much indignation was
felt and expressed in the State of Illinois, where the same practice was
allowed to prevail among the prisoners captured at Fort Donelson. The greater part, if not all, of these
prisoners, who had slaves attending them at the camp near Chicago, where
transferred soon after arrival there, the Government paying the cost of
transporting both whites and blacks. – Whether this transfer was prompted by a
knowledge of the popular indignation that had been excited, and a fear lest the
tenure by which the prisoners held them as slaves was hourly becoming more and
more insecure, I will not undertake to say.
How long, think you, will this method of dealing with the
rebels be endured by the freemen of this country? Are our brothers and sons to be confined
within the walls of the tobacco warehouses and jails of Richmond and
Charleston, obliged to perform the most menial offices, subsisted upon the most
stinted diet, their lives endangered if they attempt to obtain a breath of
fresh air, or a beam of God’s sunlight at a window, while the rebels captured by
those very men are permitted to go at large upon parole, to be pampered with
luxuries; to be attended by slaves, and
the slaves guarded from escape by our own soldiers? Well might the General Assembly of the State
of Ohio ask, in the language of a committee of their Senate: “Why were those
slaves taken at all? They were not, and
had not been in arms against the Government – their presence at Fort Donelson
was not even voluntary. Why are they
retained in prison? They have done no
wrong – they deserve no punishment. Is
it to furnish rebel officers with servants?
And was it for this they were transported at the expense of the
Government and are now subsisted at her cost?
Is our constitutional provision thus to be made a nullity, and slavery
practically established in Ohio? And
this under the protection and at the expense of the Federal Government.”
– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette,
Davenport, Iowa, Thursday Morning, May 1, 1862, p. 2
